A brief overview of good governance and a short discussion of current US failings

A group may be expected to solve a specific problem (serve a purpose) but, when more than one group serves the same purpose, the foremost task of a group is to stay ahead of other groups. When all same-purpose groups join together then the task of the group changes: manage and stay ahead of expectations to ensure that the group does not fracture into sub-groups or disunite. At all times, the task is to ensure group survival.

While no one incident is likely to doom a large group, violence, division, treachery, and stagnation can all doom a group. One often leads to another.

A healthy group’s leaders (stewards and de facto stewards such as businessmen, teachers, and role models) mediate between individual rivals, diverse sub-groups, and disparate other groups; and, they encourage people in order to effect 1) within-group peace, 2) group unity, 3) loyalty of group members to group members, and 4) technological progress.

A good leader leads a unified people. Citizens should be taught and encouraged to respect differences to the extent practicable, to act in good faith , and to trust each other, so that they can focus (as unified working teams) on the important jobs they do.[1] Similarly, law enforcement should only exist to police rogue elements—not to keep the people in line: enforcement action is only useful insofar as it makes purpose-focused work, rest, and recuperation possible.

Large numbers of group members employed in law enforcement relative to total group membership are indicative of weakness or just a waste of resources. Further, even a cripplingly high number of law enforcement officers and military service members (engaged in enforcement actions) can guarantee only tenuous peace when suspicion, division, treachery, and violence are rampant.

Only acceptable agreements can unify people and pave the way for maximal progress. Unifying agreements are not merely signatures on paper or oral commitments officially recognizing two groups as one. Unity is accomplished when two or more parties agree to combine by acceptable terms. Such agreements can be reached only when same parties fully understand and accept solutions to their differences.

It should go without saying, therefore, that a counter-party must (during negotiations) truthfully represent his or her position and expectations, and that representatives who negotiate between counter-parties must convey accurately the terms of potential agreements and, to the extent practicable, explain ramifications of same in such ways as can be understood by the people they represent.

Deception is not always intentional. A representative must understand the issues that divide counter-parties and communicate perfectly in the languages of counter-parties. (Even one important mistranslation might doom the future.)

Regardless of intent, people may feel deceived when they sense that problems remain following a solution that was supposed to fix them. Feeling betrayed, people will look to assign blame, form sub-groups, and (if things get bad enough) disunite.

Once two or more groups are united by acceptable agreements, new stewards are unfit if they do not understand the ramifications of all issues that formerly divided the newly conjoined groups because they cannot be expected to lead people they don’t understand.

The number of issues dividing many peoples may be too numerous for one representative to understand well enough to effect reconciliation. So, a leader might represent the group, and subordinate representatives might represent different members of the group. Subordinate representatives might even need to manage and aggregate the work of issue-specific subordinate representatives, deliberative bodies of same, and researchers (representatives of information).

Unification of a large group (which is ongoing) is a lot of work, which requires many resources and group members. It is well worth the effort because, all things being equal, small groups are more vulnerable than large groups. So, assuming that a leader controls sufficient resources, he or she will unite as many groups as he or she can.

Two groups might not be alike when they conjoin.[2] Every reasonable effort should be made to homogenize group members and amalgamate different groups because homogenization and amalgamation are (generally) safer than conjunction. The more similar one individual seems to another the more likely he or she is to be recognized as an in-group member. The danger of division is diminished. Additionally, it will be difficult for two people to misunderstand each other when they speak the same language according to the same rules, while they assign the same meanings to the same words. On the other hand, differences should be preserved where possible because 1) when everybody thinks the same way it is difficult to get a variety of opinion, and it is easy to fall prey to group-think; 2) every project to homogenize individuals runs the risk of creating division; and 3) a group that can accommodate more diversity will be bigger and better.

People who have been well served by a steward or a de facto steward will tend to feel loyalty. This should be dissuaded. Loyalty to any individual above any other individual can be extremely dangerous. Imagine the potential for disunion when a president (who is popular with one sub-group that is deeply divided from another) leaves office and those who were loyal to the former office holder are not loyal to the new office holder because they remain loyal to the former office holder.

Loyalty can be invested in the office of a government official to encourage loyalty to the institution of government, and that’s better than loyalty to any one government official, but loyalty to the amalgamated group is at all times better than loyalty to the institution of the government. Loyalty is best fostered between individual group members because 1) a web of loyal group members ensures group integrity;[3] and 2) neither is a leader nor is any representative the source of a group’s power: the group derives power from the agreements forged between members and the relationships that same members enjoy (with one another) as a result of those agreements.

Any group that is only a subset of all groups is susceptible to threats posed by other groups. Threats posed by other groups change with technological advancement.[4] That group which is largest, most advanced, and with the resources to utilize superior technology[5] will win in a fight when all else is equal. Resource allocation sufficient to advance technology at a rate that’s fast enough to gain or maintain technological supremacy is a vital concern and function of good[6] government.

Neither is pure equality nor is free-market capitalism an efficient way to allocate resources to achieve a maximal rate of progress (“maximal progress” or MP).

Pure equality presumes that everybody deserves the same thing and should have the same thing because they deserve it. Whether or not individuals deserve equality is a moral consideration beyond the scope of this little essay. Certainly, equal allocation of resources hurts the group.

1) Not everybody requires the same resources to get their work done. A physicist, for example, may require CERN to get his or her work done, while a car salesperson may require a showroom.

2) The time it takes to get different jobs done will vary.

3) Some individuals will require more time than others to accomplish the same job, and it will be worthwhile to employ them anyway: there will (generally) be too much work for any one person.

4) Some among these less efficient contributors will require more substantial rewards and more time to recuperate than others who are more efficient; and keeping every member in top shape (or as close to same as practicable) furthers the group.

Obviously rewards and recuperation can become onerous for a group. A group member may demand more than a group can afford. For this reason, free-market capitalism and trickle-down economics are poor alternatives to pure equality.

A free market decouples reward from productivity; then it places no restrictions on resource allocation relative to resource abundance within a context of group needs; and, as if these weren’t bad enough, a free market sets sellers (who may attempt to wrest more than their products and services are worth) against buyers (who may not want to pay what those products and services are worth) in the expectation that resources will be rightly allocated as a result of the fight.[7,8]

Trickle-down economics further supposes that those who divert resources from a group’s purposes (generally, in order to amass resources for themselves) can be expected to reinvest the diverted resources at rates sufficient to undo the same damage that they did when they diverted those resources in the first place.[9]

Maximal progress will be ensured by efficient allocation of resources, rewards, and recuperation aligned with MP in proportion to resources under management.

Presently, US citizens are 1) deeply divided into subgroups, 2) inadequately and/or disproportionately resourced, 3) misled, 4) incapable of achieving MP, and 5) maybe on the verge of disunion. As such, the US is weak and vulnerable.

De facto stewards, who do not see themselves as stewards or wrongly understand the job, have diverted resources and cultivated division in efforts to divert more resources. They have been aided by representatives who have misled constituencies, cultivated suspicion, incorrectly assigned blame (often, it seems, in attempts to deceive), and cultivated loyalties to themselves. Resource diversion has deprived the group of resources that are needed to reach important goals; and, worse, prevented many individual group members from contributing products and services all together.[10]

Sources of suffering and obstacles to progress are misidentified by confused people. But, it is unreasonable to expect that a gas-lighted people, stumbling around in search of a problem, will ever come to the right conclusions [or that, if they do, they’ll get what they’re after on their own. They might, for example, go out looking for more equity and wind up with Stalin.] Foreign adversaries would be stupid that did not take advantage of the melee to do harm. And everyday the US approaches a point of no return.[11]

Systemic changes must be made that will address US economic woes and recapture splintering group members.

Modest, one-time payments to chronically underfunded US citizens will not suffice when citizens cannot afford ongoing expenses such as housing costs, clothes, food, medical bills, and transportation (never mind the rewards that incentivize them, and the rest and recreation they need to facilitate recuperation). Nor will it be good enough to temporarily silence divisive and inflammatory personalities until they can find new megaphones, while forcing their followers into the shadows where throughout history resistance movements have flourished without text and Twitter—Facebook groups and subreddits. (Worse would be to permanently silence divisive and inflammatory personalities and leave a power vacuum to be filled by unknown bad actors who may be more virulent.)

To ensure survival in the twenty-first century, a successful US will course correct and adapt to both meet the changing needs of the group and utilize technologies that will shape the future.

It is time for US stewards to embrace an expanded resource management (ERM) program to 1) stop diversion of resources, 2) efficiently distribute resources, and 3) prevent future diversion of resources. Such a program would gather data, assess trends, estimate need, plan a course, and allocate resources by getting currency and raw materials where they are needed when they are needed. Of course, this is a monumental task! Lazy and selfish people would much rather let an invisible hand do it. Is that not like erecting a city without a plan? In no other arena do we accept that grand achievements can be accomplished by everybody just winging it!

ERM coupled with universal basic income (UBI) that is calculated to reflect the real costs of living in safe, uplifting neighborhoods—or even eliminating exchange of currency for basic needs—would 1) prevent a repeat of the economic catastrophe, 2) foster loyalty to the system rather than a company or an individual, 3) strip bad actors of misused power, 4) thwart future bad action, 5) lay the groundwork for work, and 6) smooth disruptive large-scale transitions in future (because such transitions are fraught with economic uncertainty).

Upon this foundation of right resource allocation, individually tailored rewards and recuperation determined by local managers (who are familiar with individual contributors) should be furnished to encourage performance—not productivity—because, while presently the group might need an individual to manufacture some small part that is used in some current automotive technology, the group might require that same individual to learn a new skill and get a new job in the future—and to do so as quickly as possible in order to facilitate speedy transition.[12] Rewards and recuperation tied to performance at every stage will 1) decouple rewards and recuperation from old technology, 2) focus human resources where they are needed when they are needed, and 3) maximize the rate of progress.

At the same time, community members who have been convinced of dangerous and false notions must be reinculcated—or inculcated for the first time—and reunited with the group! De facto leaders and educators (including pundits, influencers, and other personalities) must unite in the cause or be replaced with people who fully understand the issues and are willing to do what is necessary to reunite the nation.

Working together the US will stop hemorrhaging allies and again bring together diverse people from all over the world. Else, like every other great power that came before it, the US will be eclipsed, and the future will be anybody’s guess.

________________________________________

1 Suspicion should be extirpated. Citizen spies are divided citizens. And what are two groups but divided people?

2 Two groups might be extremely similar, too. Sometimes a single difference separates two groups, and it will be a matter of expanding the list of “attributes of group members” to include a single characteristic that will effect union.

3 For example, some Americans do no presently see others as “real Americans.” And the “real Americans” might like to do battle with those whom they see as “enemies of the state”. On the macro level there is division. On an individual basis one American is perceived as disloyal to another. In another example, division does not exist but misplaced loyalty to an individual bad actor makes the job of dividing people easier.

4 Technological advancement should not be misconstrued to indicate only the fastest computers and best drones, for example. Philosophy, strategy and tactics, and implementation of same all utilize technology and benefit from technological advancement.

5 In the case of the US, which already controls vast resources, this is certainly not an issue worth considering here.

6 A bad action is not merely some action that negatively impacts peace, unity, loyalty, and/or current rate of progress in pursuit of a particular purpose. Disruption is necessary to progress and can have short-term negative ramifications. In general, a bad purpose negatively effects survival prospects over the long term.

7 Free-market capitalism and trickle down economics are illogical and idealistic suppositions advanced by self-interested parties to confuse people, and by lazy thinkers who are cripplingly overwhelmed by the enormity of the task of managing vast resources. Further, managing vast resources requires (perceived) self-sacrifice—an idea generally repugnant to perceived self-interest.

8 Currency, while it is not strictly a resource, is a generally accepted representation of resources and, as such, currency is generally indistinguishable from resources.

9 Resources are raw materials, labor, and their representative: currency. Amassing or otherwise consuming finished products is not generally a diversion of resources. Unless same leads to scarcity of raw materials and labor, buying products and services will generally yield MP as money flows from old work to new work.

10 Some resource requirements are quantized. That is, whereas some portion of resources may be adequate to accomplish less (e.g., producing fewer munitions), some portion of resources may not be able to accomplish anything at all (e.g., procuring a product or service without which the job cannot be done).

11 No one can say with certainty that we haven’t already crossed it.

12 Imagine a person getting paid to produce goods or services being offered the chance to get in on something new and what that means: uncertainty, costs, suffering. It seems illogical to expect that this system would effect speedy transitions from old to new technologies.